I don't really understand why this interview is supposed to be as big a deal as it's apparently supposed to be. I certainly see no reason to watch it.
There I go with the dreamkilling again, I suppose.
Seriously, teo. Die, dream, die!
1: People looking ahead to 2012, mostly I think. Plus, the added drama of strongwoman-on-strongwoman-drama or something.
But 2012 is like three years away! How many people actually care about it at this point? Also, how many people actually think she has a shot at the nomination?
There's even more drama in 4 than I intended. See what happens with women? Drama. [ducks; runs away]
What I want to know is whether it's better than having your wisdom tooth pulled.
As far as I can tell, the interview hype is pretty much all about selling her book. Which is okay, I guess, but not the sort of thing I see much reason to pay attention to.
Today's young people: just not that interested in civic affairs.
What I want to know is whether it's better than having your wisdom tooth pulled.
You betcha! And I really do mean that. It was. That wisdom tooth was a box of mad ferrets wrapped in flaming habaneros fucking kites made of TNT. Fucking tooth, man.
I'm with teo. I can't imagine actually going out of my way to pay attention to Sarah Palin. Or Oprah, for that matter.
11: Really? I have no doubt, talking to winger types, that she's going to figure in the outcome. I guess that calculation could be wrong.
I wonder if 12 is a purple-state anxiety, too.
12: Even if that's true, which I refuse to believe, there's nothing to be gained by paying attention to her. It's not like any sort of rational response is going to do any good with anyone who finds her a plausible candidate for President. So any time that one might spend watching an interview with her could be better spent looking into job opportunities in Australia or New Zealand.
I think I'll take tooth pulling, at least that will provide me with some benefit down the line. OT, mildly embarrassed myself yesterday walking up to someone in a Park Slope cafe who looked a lot like our post author and was talking about performing.
He did not, in fact, want to sex Mutombo?
Our Prime Minister is a poll-driven uncommitted former currency trader with no previous political experience. Just saying.
17: But not so much with the nuclear weapons, which is a plus.
No, and when I added 'Kobe!" he started looking rather uneasy.
5
... Also, how many people actually think she has a shot at the nomination?
Intrade pegs her chances at about 20%.
What NPH said. I figure I've already had to pay more attention to her than I could conceivably ever have wanted to. She's fascinating on some level in theory, but in practice the implications of her celebrity are way too depressing to consider.
walking up to someone in a Park Slope cafe who looked a lot like our post author
For the record, I'm likely in Greenpoint these days, if spotted NYC-side. Sorry for the confusion, but the story made me laugh.
12 looks to me like a total non sequitur with respect to 11. (in other words...what I mean to say is...14)
Why do I have to add extra adverbs to everything, making me seem like I'm experiencing intense emotions on whatever subject I'm talking about? Take out the word "total" from 23.
23: Unless she drops the ball big time (totes possible), The Serious Media is about to pay a bunch of attention to her now and and in 2012. So, I'm keeping an eye on her. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced she's irrelevant, but without evidence, I'll keep watching.
But that way lies madness, Stanley.
20: Intrade pegs her chances at about 20%.
Intrade thinks a lot of stupid things, which, amusingly enough, turn out to be wrong. It is a pretty good arbiter of conventional wisdom, some part of which is Republican and seriously enamoured of her tits strong leadership skills.
Adise: the other day I saw a story in the New York Times referring to someone's (I forget who it was) "sexy librarian" image.
I read that three times and screamed 'Porno librarian! Fucking PORNO librarian, you fucking weasels! I made it up...use it fucking RIGHT!'
But no.
max
['Instead, we have to pretend there's something else to this.']
If Obama's popular going into the 2012 election, I wouldn't be surprised if most credible Republicans hang back, leaving Palin with a reasonable shot at the nomination. If he looks bearable, on the other hand, I doubt she makes it past the first primary.
Bearable s/b beatable. Blasted spelling corrections.
If Obama's popular going into the 2012 election, I wouldn't be surprised if most credible Republicans hang back, leaving Palin with a reasonable shot at the nomination.
Which is kind of what happened in 1992, yes? All sorts of Democrat heavyweights looked at Bush's 90% approvals after DESERT STORM and decided they were going to sit this one out. Thus, Clinton. So the worst case is for Obama to be looking great in the second half of 2011, and then have some massive failure - double-dip recession would do the trick - that would destroy him in the 2012 election.
Actually, I'd think of Palin as a safety factor if that happened. Barring a really implausible level of weakness (like, Obama reveals that he really is a Kenyan/Muslim mole) I thinkbPalon still couldn't win. I'd be much more afraid of someone like Huckabee under those circumstances.
Hmm. Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them, is the saying in the UK - though admittedly that's not a presidential system.
At least Obsidian Wings frontpaged the good picture. Not that I'm telling ya how to run your blog, just sayin.
Last night, as I was staring at pinup Palin, I kept thinking how fitting it will be, after 40 years of voting as straight Democratic ticket, that in 2012, quite possibly my final political gesture, I would vote for Palin and see her elected President.
We deserve the very worst. I would actually prefer Hayden Panettiere.
I would actually prefer Hayden Panettiere.
For what Bob?
26: Unless she drops the ball big time
Yeah, like being revealed for the nth time as a serial liar. Never mind, forget that, I temporarily forgot we're in the world where Biff has the sports almanac. Won't happen again.
If you enjoy vomiting into your mouth a little bit, go read the odious Matthew Continetti's review in the odious Washington Post. It starts, Like a lot of people, as soon as I got my copy of Sarah Palin's "Going Rogue," I immediately thought of the German literary critic Hans Robert Jauss. (via Bérubé.)
36: that really is a classic line. I still wonder if he could have possibly written it seriously.
34: I kept thinking ... after 40 years of voting as straight Democratic ticket,
Yeah, at that moment I often find myself "thinking" about past dalliances that didn't work out in the long run.
Dan Brown's Review of Sarah Palin's Going Rogue by Lynn Vincent, by Matthew Continetti.
Whyn'tcha vote for Oprah, bob, you tiresome grump.
37: Not completely seriously I'm sure. But the content of the review itself is damning enough.
I'd like to see a Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul ticket.
President, of course.
I realize that some nit-pickers would object because of the Constitutional age qualification, but in these times of national emergency, we should be flexible enough to put the appropriate people into power.
This country is a complete clown show and farce, not because of Sarah Palin, but because of Barry Obama, and the devotion and adulation given by Democrats to the President for Goldman Sachs.
There is not enough difference to matter between Obama and Palin. Both are celebrity and identity politicians, the triumph of style over substance. Politics has become American Idol.
President, of course.
Just as long as it isn't to kidnap for the fall-out shelter.
When Obama plans to balance the budget in the middle of a depression, it only matters how smart or informed he looks while doing it to those who get their validation from who he is rather than what he does.
If we are crashing down to 30% unemployment, I'd rather have Hayden giggle and moue while causing it than listen to Barry's righteous priggishness and phony compassion.
Do you ever jerk off to your own self-righteousness, bob? Might be even hotter than the jailbait actress. Trite, sure, but so is porn.
I still think my Kucinich/Paul ticket would be better. If you can combine them all into one group, the crazy, the maladjusted, the delusional, the irate and the nebbish are a clear majority.
If you can combine them all into one group, the crazy, the maladjusted, the delusional, the irate and the nebbish are a clear majority.
And a pretty good description of the Founding Fathers...
46:Better than to start dribbling at the very mention of moderation, practicality, meliorism. "Oh, the incrementalism! So exciting I can barely stand it"
This nation of bottoms is begging for velvet handcuffs.
I am become the Troll of Sorrow.
There is not enough difference to matter between Obama and Palin.
Yeah, the Naderites told us the same thing about Gore and Bush.
53: If you look at relationships with the financial markets, Nader was probably right. Obviously, there are plenty of other issues, but the more I read about the bailout, the more I look for how to cast a 'fuck you' ballot.
Even if Obama agrees with me on most issues, it seems like his disagreement with me on the issue of whether it's a good idea to give all of Earth's money to financial middlemen so they can become monopolies might be more significant than all other issues combined.
55: no. Issues like "should the US go to war with Iran" and "is global warming real" are far more significant than giving a relatively small amount of money* to a few banks. And although I have no idea what's going on with the healthcare debate in the US - it seems to have roughly the complexity and vitriol of the Council of Nicaea, without the punchup - it seems to be moving very roughly in the right direction, which is also a good thing.
*small by comparison with the cost of the damage done by war with Iran or unchecked climate change, that is.
how many people actually think she has a shot at the nomination?
She has a decent shot at the nomination, as long as the GOP keeps using the winner-take-all system in their primaries. It only takes a plurality under those rules, and the GOP is bleeding down to its wingnut base, which springs giant conservaboners every time she flips her hair and winks.
Also, most of the big names in the GOP are likely to wait until 2016, so she would be facing a weaker field in 2012. She's never going to be president, of course, and it isn't clear to me that she even *wants* to run for president. But if she's going to do it, the next cycle is her best shot.
which springs giant conservaboners every time she flips her hair and winks.
"Uh oh, got a lowry in my trousers!"
59: Oh, wait, that's just a pube.
For god's sake, unzip your pants, Tweety! The little starbursts ricocheting around in here are going to put my one eye out!
Also, most of the big names in the GOP are likely to wait until 2016, so she would be facing a weaker field in 2012.
That makes sense, except that I remember everybody saying the same thing about the big-name Dems waiting for 1996 because GHWB was a lock in 1992.
To those of you who think this country wouldn't elect someone like Palin, I ask: Where have you been living the last ten years? The same question applies to those of you who see no difference between Obama and Palin.
I saw Palin on Oprah and thought she was very effective. Huckabee is going to be given a run for his money as the leader of the dominant wing of the party.
I would vote for Palin and see her elected President.
My good man, if you send me a picture of yourself clutching her book at one of her appearances, I will send you a crisp, new 5$ bill. Are you interested? Wait! It gets better: if, come 2012, you can show me evidence that you actually voted for her (I should think a cell phone photo taken inside the voting booth would do nicely), I will send you an additional 10$. Has anyone ever been compensated so well for throwing a tantrum and helping to destroy America? I think not.
To those of you who think this country wouldn't elect someone like Palin, I ask: Where have you been living the last ten years? The same question applies to those of you who see no difference between Obama and Palin.
I saw Palin on Oprah and thought she was very effective. Huckabee is going to be given a run for his money as the leader of the dominant wing of the party.
62: The big name Democrats *did* sit it out. That's how a relatively unknown governor from Arkansas won the nomination over Elmer Fudd Paul Tsongas and Governor Moonbeam.
66: Yes, I know they did. I was expressing concern with your "She'll never be president", not disputing "2012 is her best shot".
Has anyone ever been compensated so well for throwing a tantrum and helping to destroy America?
"Nader's total net worth is between $4.1 million and $5 million."
Anyway, in 1992 I was for Bob Kerry, largely because I saw the backs of the heads of the people who saw him announce his candidacy.
67: Ah. Right. Well, I've said before that she's no more preposterous than Ronald Reagan. However, I think quitting in the middle of her gubernatorial term is probably an insurmountable handicap in a general election. The attack ads just write themselves.
#68. Updated to reflect new information: Has anyone on Unfogged ever been compensated so well for throwing a tantrum and helping to destroy America? I think not.
It's interesting to read how the more-or-less apolitical folks with whom I went to high school write about her. She's a "smart lady," "who doesn't bs, like the rest of them."
Eric Son of Eric makes shit up reports on his interview with Sarah Palin.
"I did not want to sound like Katie Couric and ask what she's read, but I broached the subject and she went right into mentioning Thomas Sowell and Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. She said she has read some of the foundational stuff, but she sees no need to focus on the old writings. She likes "the modern stuff too." Her preference is policy and application, focusing on writers who are not just following up on foundational conservative ideas, but applying those ideas too."
Q: Whatcha readin'?
A: Oh, you know ... stuff ... You know?
68 is fantastic.
72 is upsetting.
Proper respect must be paid to the unreality-based community.They win a lot more than you'd expect, just based on the "would it be sane to elect this person" argument. What percentage of the country preferred McCain-Palin to Obama-Biden?
This country is fucked up in times of peace and plenty. In times of war and economic turmoil, there's no telling what might happen.
She's a "smart lady," "who doesn't bs, like the rest of them."
Translation: I don't pay attention AT ALL.
On the other hand 72's style does evoke a Zagat for politicians, which would be terrific.
He's a "shitty legislator" who may "bring home pork like there's no tomorrow" but still "sucks cock like a champ"
Well, she's smart in the sense of 'well-dressed'... and it's true that she doesn't bs like the rest of them. She bs's in her own inimitable way.
Translation: I don't pay attention AT ALL. consider anything I don't already think to be BS.
77 is hilarious.
79: No, it isn't that. They believe very little of what she does. These folks are pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, not Christian. But somehow her lack of nuance and subtlety translates into "straight talk!" which apparently is a good in itself.
PALIN 2012: because she's too dumb to be crooked!
For example:
"She did/ get on my/ nerves a bit duri/ng the electi/ons...but I have to /say I like /her. No BS l/ike the other po/liticians"
or
"I am/ /a fan/! I think /she d/oesn't b./s. like the r/est. That's w/hy people don't/ know how to t/ake her. Beca/use she doe/sn't walk on eg/gsh/ells. All the o/thers make a t/on of empty pro/mises that they NE/VER plan to keep an/yway!"
We're having a two-day symposium on poverty in America, which has yielded some slightly awful conversations with highly conservative students who are just so frustrated with people abusing the system.
Do I know the kind of abuses they've seen? Do I know that they see people paying with WIC at the grocery store, and then pull out their i-phone? Do I know that they worked on landscaping at low-incoming housing, and barely anyone ever left to go to work? While they're working their tail off? Also, the customer should negotiate their own prices at the hospital and government should stay out.
It's unfortunate that the word "joke" is so vague. Reagan and Nixon were jokes as politicians (famous due to a career as a crappy actor in one case, a punching bag's career path in the other case, and both were right-wing nutcases in their stated beliefs), and the fact that they got elected president doesn't mean that their joke-of-a-politician traits never existed.
Palin, though, is really just a joke as a person. Not just corrupt but also venal, not just fumbling but bumbling, not just an asshole in personal life but petty... I hesitate to say that there's no way someone quite that bad could get elected, because many people have been wrong when they said that. And I also hesitate to say that Palin is just that much more of a joke than Reagan or Nixon, because it seems too simplistically convenient to believe that Republicans are just continually going from bad to even worse. But if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, sooner or later we have to face facts.
||
Why am I so tired today? I had the usual amount to drink last night (two beers) and got the usual amount of sleep, and had the usual coffee this morning. Don't feel sick. I got bad news yesterday, but I can't remember any time something like that has made me feel tired. It's just as if I only got three hours of sleep last night instead of seven.
|>
Also they've got this curious mix of "no duh, Walmart abuses it's employees; I work there" and "none of the proposed solutions would work." (We had a liberal keynote speaker last night who proposed outrageous ideas like raising the minimum wage, offering affordable housing, and subsidizing higher education. Our insightful students saw right through all that for the power grab of your rightful taxes. Plus if you raise minimum wage then everything will get more expensive for the rest of us.)
Almost all of them are dabbling near poverty, yet they ally themselves with the rich folk who'll get shanked if we try to reform anything, rather than the poor folk who stand to benefit.
85: did you know that some poor people own televisions? Shocking, but true.
Almost all of them are dabbling near poverty, yet they ally themselves with the rich folk who'll get shanked if we try to reform anything, rather than the poor folk who stand to benefit.
Well, yeah.
87: That "there's nothing to be done" attitude has been one of the right's most successful strategies. The people/regions/states that would benefit the most from such programs are often the most resistant. E.g.: Texas.
yet they ally themselves with the rich folk who'll get shanked if we try to reform anything, rather than the poor folk who stand to benefit.
Sure they do. They plan to use their college education to join the rich folk, after all. You think they're there to expand their intellectual horizons or something?
I went to college because everybody said Calc profs were hot. But my section had a dude teaching, so now I have to pay-off student loans for nothing.
To elaborate on "no duh, Walmart abuses it's employees; I work there":
One guy said "Of course they tell you to punch out, and then make you keep working. It happens all the time." But he's not outraged that he's being robbed. I just don't get why they aren't outraged about this stuff.
87.last is why I've never understood why What's Wrong with Kansas? has been written out of the conversation. The consensus, after a few months of discussion, seemed to be that nothing's wrong with Kansas. I seem to recall that some polling cast doubt on the narrative (that poor Kansans vote against their economic interests), but I don't see how it is that H-G's students aren't, well, poor people voting against their economic interests.
Is it just that all "false consciousness" narratives are automatically out of bounds? Like, Heebie's students are actually Wal-Mart stockholders, so their political positions are economically rational?
I just don't get why they aren't outraged about this stuff.
Many people are okay with living in mud as long as somebody else has to live in shit.
97: heebie's students are poor people voting against their economic interests, but by and large the phenomenon that electoral outcomes are determined (or even meaningfully affected) by people voting against their economic interest is illusory, per Andrew Gelman's statistical work in this book.
98: As long as they can blame the person living in shit for the shit that was shat upon them by the people sitting in the mud.
Allegorical toilets in Texas are complicated.
99: And I seem to recall seeing a map of the US showing how the 2004 election would have gone by state if only certain economic subgroups voted. With only the poor voting, every state went blue but, like, Utah, I think. It's possible that President Seekrit Mooselman changed that metric a bit for 2008, I guess.
Completely off-topic hive mind request: does anyone have a recommendation for a good restaurant for a dinner in Princeton NJ? Needs to be sit down, ny kind of food is fine
103: That's awful swell of you to treat teo to a nice dinner like that.
One guy said "Of course they tell you to punch out, and then make you keep working. It happens all the time." But he's not outraged that he's being robbed. I just don't get why they aren't outraged about this stuff.
The uniting thread in the conservative coalition is authoritarianism. Whether it's God, the generals, or the CEOs, conservatives are looking for someone to obey.
105: I think it's more fatalistic than that. This isn't military obedience; it's more resigned, like 92. They just don't believe it's possible to change the system.
99, 102: Well right, I get that the poor as a whole vote Dem. But in states with greater inequality*, poor whites vote Republican in greater numbers than any other group of poor people anywhere. And, per H-G, believe all sorts of Randian nonsense on top of it. Which is just insane-making.
Given the elections of '04 and '00, I have trouble with claims that "electoral outcomes are determined (or even meaningfully affected) by people voting against their economic interest is illusory;" the election of 2000 was determined by liberal Jews voting for Pat Buchanan - how the hell can anyone claim that millions of other voters voting out of hatred and ignorance aren't meaningfully affecting anything?
What was the finally gap in Ohio in '04? 100K? Does Gelman actually show that 55k poor, white Ohioans with self-hating economic views didn't vote for Bush? Or does he hand-wave them away because a lot of other people, with much better reasons, also voted for Bush?
* I think this is actually from Gelman
And, according to Altemeyer, authoritarians never experience cognitive dissonance ever. So you can't reach them through exposing contradictions.
103: Hey, rob, I asked my brother the wine guy and he says in Princeton, Elements or "Or just north in Kingston is Eno Terra, cool, upscale, local purveyors, when possible, good wine list."
1. Michael Contenetti wrote an op-ed in the WSJ about Sarah Palin's chances in 2012. Bottom line: most people don't think she's qualified to be President, but she's more popular than John Edwards and if you flip her favorable and her unfavorable stats among independents and ignore the fact that Democrats vote she looks pretty good.
Not every writer's job is to write about the truth, or to even just entertain readers. Some people are just supposed to throw shit out there and see what sticks.
2. How many of Heebie's students actually vote? How many vote Republican? On a psychological level, many people have "hypocrtical" weird beliefs. I know people who were really wild when they were growing up, but who think that the biggest problems they'll face as parents will be caused by the prevalance of text-messaging. I know people who never go to church and who barely qualify as Christian but who are really outraged about the war on Christmas. I know women who would undoubtedly get an abortion if necessary but who are still deeply suspicions of women who have abortions too thoughtlessly. All this stuff is ridiculous but that doesn't mean that these people vote Republican (or that they even vote at all).
Moreover, the relationship between the ideology of elected officials and the day-to-day lives of ordinary people is not really as obvious as people seem to be claiming.
87
... Plus if you raise minimum wage then everything will get more expensive for the rest of us.
You should point out the plus side. It would discourage illegal immigration. Isn't higher prices a small price to pay?
111: It will? I'd think it would increase demand for undocumented workers who can't demand minimum wage.
111: Sorry - on re-read I see that you must be joking or trolling.
No, I think that's serious. I'd been debating arguing with an earlier claim along those lines, but got tired. If you're up for it, this one's all yours.
the relationship between the ideology of elected officials and the day-to-day lives of ordinary people is not really as obvious as people seem to be claiming.
I know that people in general assign their own views to politicians that they happen to like, but is it really the case that a lot of people are voting for Republicans because they believe that that is the party more likely to raise minimum wages or increase labor rights? It's in the big picture (Who's for the little guy? Who's for the fat cats?) that the ideologies of the parties, and its relationship to peoples' daily lives, have been most stable.*
Indeed, part of my point is that these people have taken on an ideology that is against their economic best interests - it's not that they vote R because of abortion, but wish they could vote for Dems on the basis of economic issues (there are some few like this, but I think vanishingly small).
* Granted that Rs have worked to blur this, and the Ds handed them a huge win with the no-strings-attached bailouts, but, as I say, I don't think these folks are actually confused about which party more supports reining in Wal-Mart: what they're confused about is which side they themselves are on.
105: I think it's more fatalistic than that. This isn't military obedience; it's more resigned, like 92. They just don't believe it's possible to change the system.
This gets it right. Maybe if there was some prominent public figure or politician who consistently made an issue out of it, people would start thinking it was an issue that could be changed, instead of a fait accompli. But any public figure like that does not get treated seriously by the media. (or by the Democratic party)
Thanks Oudemia! We will try Eno Terra. Teo can come if he promises to wear his ranger hat.
but is it really the case that a lot of people are voting for Republicans because they believe that that is the party more likely to raise minimum wages or increase labor rights?
No, they vote Republican because the GOP will cut taxes so they can keep more of their hard-earned money. All that other stuff is just communist labor union flim-flam.
Teo can come if he promises to wear his ranger hat.
Sadly, I left the had in NM. I didn't spring for the carrying case.
The hat, that is. I would say I had a cold, but I don't.
poor whites vote Republican in greater numbers than any other group of poor people anywhere
No, they vote Republican because the GOP
They vote the way they do for the same reason they pull for [Tar Heels/Blue Devils/Yankees/RedSox/Cowboys/Steelers]. That's just the team they've always pulled for.
labor union flim-flam.
The anti-union stuff is pretty strong in Virginia and very odd to me as a transplant from a union family in Chicago. I know a few people who had voted for Obama but stayed home during the recent governor's election because they didn't like McDonnell but Deeds was just too pro-union, or some such.
I had a surreal conversation with one such person, which I may have already shared, in which she made such an argument, to which I responded, "Uh, yeah, things sure were a lot better before the unions came around."
"Exactly!" she said.
Facepalm.
123: That's one of those "Women were doing just fine before feminism"* kind of thoughts.
_____________
* Actual Rush Limbaugh quote.
121: Well yeah, but I was looking for an explanation other than racism. And, per apo's 122, why did "their" team switch from Dem to Republican? Again, hard to explain it without racism. But that leaves us nowhere - they deny it, moderates are offended at the accusation, and it doesn't gain us any votes.
Sigh.
Don't a lot of poor people not vote at all? I mean, like half the eligible voting population doesn't usually vote, right? I was of the impression that the non-voters are disproportionately poor compared to the eligible voting population as a whole.
I think 126 kind of answers 125. I don't think you can ignore racism, but boosting turnout among poor people (admittedly not an easy proposition), who are disproportionately non-white and disproportionately likely to vote for Democrats, is a way to get more votes without bothering with trying to convince poor whites of anything. And remember that the country is getting steadily less white.
127: Just like my teeth. Too much coffee.
127: Nice segue to this effed up result (although the question asked was quite effed up to begin with.)
I don't think these folks are actually confused about which party more supports reining in Wal-Mart: what they're confused about is which side they themselves are on.
Yes, but this confusion comes with both costs and benefits. The benefit is the psychological boost that comes with identifying with the rich against the (even more) poor. The cost is not the missed opportunity to identify with the wonderful party of the underdog (trivial) but rather the actual benefits Democrats would deliver if in power. That's much less tangible.
per apo's 122, why did "their" team switch from Dem to Republican?
An awful lot of them came of voting age after the switch, which was about 30 years ago now.
Which is not to say that racism wasn't the initial driver (and maintainer) of that switch because, duh.
||
Good lord, I've just been town halled -- or tea-partied. Standing in line at the Post Office, in the antechamber before they reopened for lunch, there were 5 or 6 of us; two older ladies were declaiming to one another as I entered, "And now there's going to be government-run health care! Don't even get me started! It's pure socialism is what it is! I'm afraid it's going to pass, too. I pray every day, I do. He fooled everybody, he really did." [much head-shaking, vociferous nodding, "Oh, I know"s, and ... here's what got to me, the other line-members were chuckling and head-shaking as the ladies became louder and more shouty and began to interrupt one another]
I couldn't take it. Do you know the phenomenon whereby you hear yourself speaking as though disembodied, hearing your own voice as though from a distance? I observed my voice emanating from my mouth, asking, "Do you have Medicare?" I had to raise my voice and repeat myself as the lady did a double-take. (and I, frankly, began to flush - what am I doing talking to this woman, people are beginning to stare)
Her: Yes, yes I do.
Me, quietly: You know that Medicare is government run?
Her, shouty: Yes! And it's bankrupt, just like everything else is bankrupt and our debt is in the trillions, and
Me, interrupting: So you think we should abolish Medicare?
Her, cont. strident: Yes I do! This country is so bankrupt, everything is in the hole and I pray for us, I really do, it will be a miracle if this country survives what's going on now, mark my words, and
I confess that at that point I turned my back to her; she was speaking to the room at large anyway, beginning to head for the door, making parting shots.
I really don't encounter this kind of thing on any regular basis, and on the way home, it occurred to me that I am *really* out of touch, an apparent freak, and maybe I should move to sin city where the rest of the commie-pinko-fags reside in peaceful ignorance.
|>
I was just coming round to make sure that the data linked in 129 became part of this.
I don't really share Benen's skepticism about the result (I mean, it may not be the exact right number, but as a ballpark number it's plausible to me). First of all, after '00 and '04, I think people are kind of used to the idea that presidential elections are close; on top of that, the press didn't really cover the campaign as the likely blowout that it was. 12 months later, I'm sure a lot of these people vaguely assume that Obama didn't win by a very big margin. On top of that, Rs have been priming the pump on vote fraud allegations for years; this is the fruit of their labor. Most of the 52% probably think that 5-10% of the Dem vote in every election is fraudulent. Put that together with the crazy rhetoric from the far right, and this result is natural.
Totally insane and dysfunctional, but natural.
I really don't encounter this kind of thing on any regular basis, and on the way home, it occurred to me that I am *really* out of touch, an apparent freak
That seems a rash assumption to make based on one encounter.
Even if there was only one encounter, if you get a rash, see your doctor.
136: How am I supposed to pay for that?
137: Isn't there a clinic at the nearest WalMart?
The data in 129 would have a clearer meaning if we had some control questions, like "Do you believe that Barack Obama likes to strangle kittens?" or "Does Malia Obama hate all that is good in the world?" I suspect that a shockingly large percentage of Republicans would answer yes to those questions, too.
139: Or "Is Barack Obama the Antichrist?"
"Do you believe that Barack Obama likes to strangle kittens?"
What, that's a dealbreaker now?
On top of that, Rs have been priming the pump on vote fraud allegations for years
The sad fact of American politics is that at least 35-40% of the electorate belongs in a mental institution, and there's probably another 10-20% who are high-functioning retards. The Congressional numbers are no better. There's no point in trying to make a deal with these people.
He's got the numbers reversed, but the point stands.
135: I attempt to console myself, then. Still a little surprised at how disturbing it was; apparently everybody else present found the two women's shared diatribe to be completely unremarkable, which was just Fucking Weird. That's all.
Off to look at the 129 link.
142: That would imply a serious failing on the part of the Democratic leadership. Trying to persaude voters in such a case shouldn't really depend on the content of the policies, only on the capabilities of the advocate.
That would imply a serious failing on the part of the Democratic leadership.
The Democratic leadership has been seriously failing for decades.
145: Yes, but so has the Republican leadership, if not for quite as long. I guess I'm a bit leery of arguments that can be boiled down to "Rove is a genius" (or Newt or whoever). (Note: I'm not saying I can disprove such arguments.)
apparently everybody else present found the two women's shared diatribe to be completely unremarkable, which was just Fucking Weird.
You don't think it's just that in general people let loudly barking dogs lie, and/or figure that there's not much point in arguing with opinionated strangers?
My argument isn't that Rove is a genius; it's that we live in a big, dumb country where half the people couldn't tell you who their Congressperson is, much less what that Congressperson supports.
133: No one noted the irony that this was all going down in line at the post office?
148: O.K. But what is the difference between "we live in a big, dumb country" and "the best advertiser wins the election."?
149: THAT JUST PROVES MY POINT!
The Democratic leadership has been seriously failing for decades.
There's an interesting Michael Tomasky piece in the recent NYRB on the nature of the blue dog democrats. Worth the read, at least for me.
In particular, he points out quite convincingly that as the Dems become a bigger-tent party, the legislative divisions we'd normally see just between the Dem and Republican parties are migrating to an intraparty struggle within the Democratic party itself. The numbers, broken out by state, speak for themselves there.
To the point about the failure of Democratic leadership, though: the article makes it sound very much as though Pelosi et al. know exactly what they're doing with the party they have (as opposed to the party they'd like to have). Admittedly, Tomasky is concerned more with the House than with the Senate.
Further to 148: it's also a country where professional wrestling is a multibillion-dollar industry and where an enormous chunk of the population treats the Bible as a history textbook. There's a decent-sized constituency for just about any crazy-assed notion you'd like to put forward.
what is the difference between "we live in a big, dumb country" and "the best advertiser wins the election."
I don't think we're discussing the same issue. I'm responding to why so many people could believe as obviously false a notion as ACORN delivering nearly ten million fraudulent votes to Obama.
147: You don't think it's just that in general people let loudly barking dogs lie, and/or figure that there's not much point in arguing with opinionated strangers?
Perhaps, yes. I wish they would argue, I guess. Otherwise these barking dogs think they're speaking for the majority, or voicing received wisdom. That's how you slowly silence others.
But of course, doing that in line at the post office is not the place. But if not there, where?
Ha. But I couldn't take the silence. Since I had business to conduct at the post office, though, getting into full-blown fisticuffs over the fact that we were at the fucking post office seemed counter-productive.
Also, don't people generally hate the post office? It's not one of those government agencies people usually point to as examples of how government can work well.
I don't hear people complain about the post office any more than they complain about UPS. The DMV is the cliched complaint in that category.
Otherwise these barking dogs think they're speaking for the majority
They're going to think that regardless. I had a somewhat similar experience where a guy in line with me at Cap'n D's (which had CNN on the TV) said something to the effect that Obama didn't believe in the Constitution. The conversation that followed went roughly like this.
"Which parts of the Constitution are you referring to?"
[blink] "What?"
"Which parts of the Constitution do you think he wants to overturn?"
"Pff. All of it."
"You think he wants to quarter soldiers in people's homes?"
"What?"
"That's the Third Amendment. You think he wants to overturn that?"
"I know he wants to overturn the Second Amendment."
"Based on what?"
"Let me guess. You're a Democrat."
"Yeah."
[rolls his eyes and turns back around]
Wouldn't quartering a soldier violate the 'cruel and unusual punishment' thing, regardless of where you did it?
158: Right, it's not the example of government dysfunction people generally present either, but no one goes around singing its praises either.
He wants to quarter crazy Muslim sleeper cell soldiers in nice white women's wombs.
Otherwise these barking dogs think they're speaking for the majority, or voicing received wisdom.
But it seems like you thought they were too.
161: I really like the Post Office's newish flat rate boxes and envelopes for priority mail. It's like half-assed FedEx, for much less than half-price.
165 was me. Apparently, I don't like them enough to post carefully.
[rolls his eyes and turns back around]
That's when you should have capped his ass.
159: Okay, I am indeed consoled. Love ya, Apo.
"Which parts of the Constitution do you think he wants to overturn?"
"Pff. All of it."
"You think he wants to quarter soldiers in people's homes?"
Awesome. Also, that reminds me of some moments in HS debate.
169: I was thinking Prohibition might be successfully used in such an exchange, but I guess if both alcohol amendments were overturned, we'd be at status quo ante.
Obligatory:
Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be
[Okay, I realize, that is the sort of thing that the black helicopter crowd would accuse Obama of trying to do, but still, it just seems silly to me.]
You'll notice that the Third Amendment doesn't prohibit quartering ACORN workers in people's homes.
||
My job makes me work, sometimes even when I don't feel like it.
|>
Ah, now that I finish my train of thought, I realize that I wanted to say "repeal the NINTH amendment!"
155: what I want to know is who are the 9% of Democrats that believe ACORN stole the election from McCain?
I wouldn't be surprised if Obama wants to take away our military's freedom to quarter soldiers in people's homes.
169: That's one of my stock responses to the evergreen "doesn't respect the Constitution" complaint. Mostly cribbed from Amadeus ("Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?"). When somebody starts in that "nothing in the Constitution guarantees subsidized health care," the stock response is that nothing in Constitution guarantees subsidized space exploration but that doesn't make NASA a 10th Amendment violation.
Try them! They're really useful!
Sometimes I wish that people didn't act like a democratic constitution was some sort of sacred artifact, rather than a basic law with all the horse-trading and compromising that a nascent entity can muster (which is quite a bit).
nothing in Constitution guarantees subsidized space exploration but that doesn't make NASA a 10th Amendment violation
Or maybe it does!
179: Actual Constitutional knowledge is almost as fun as actual Bible knowledge!
183: As an example of "Provide for the common defense?" I've saw a documentary about what would happen if aliens invaded. We weren't ready and, if you ask me, we got lucky that their computers could be infected by a standard computer virus.
The Founding Fathers Hated Shrimp!
177: Some of them are going to be a baseline of people who misspoke or misheard. My guess for anyone really in that category is old rightwing Southerners who still identify as Democrats despite not voting that way much.
WHA'S THAT SONNY? AM I SATISFIED WITH MY ACORN SELECTION? SURE! I GOT PLENTY A THE ACORNS! ALL KINDS!
188: Back several jobs ago, I used to have to worry about scoring political knowledge questions. One of those questions "Which political party is generally more conservative?" always caused the older profs to worry about southerners. I always had to check even those this sort of confusion was not very common by the time I was working.
at Cap'n D's
I haven't seen one of those in a long time. I guess they're a Southern thing, mostly?
Yeah, I don't actually know if anyone's left in that category -- my guess is that the bulk of the 9% just got confused by the question or misspoke.
103, 109, 117: As a rule of thumb, the answer to "where can I find a good restaurant in Princeton?" seems to be "outside of Princeton". Unless you just enjoy the experience of paying high prices for mediocre food. Blue Point Grill serves pretty good seafood, though (and has a nice variety of options). There's also a Chinese place in the Princeton Shopping Center which serves decent food if (and probably only if) you have a Chinese person with you. (By my standards, at least; it's orders of magnitude better than your run-of-the-mill American-Chinese restaurant, though the local Chinese people still seem to think it sucks.)
177: 155: what I want to know is who are the 9% of Democrats that believe ACORN stole the election from McCain?
The ones that ACORN paid to vote for Obama. D'oh!
Yeah, I don't actually know if anyone's left in that category
My grandmother: let me show you her.
188.last: I recall there being a mini-blog-kerfuffle on election night 2004 when someone noticed "Democrats" in rural Florida counties going strongly for Bush. No fraud, no big difference form earlier elections, just that group.
But as for the poll, I agree that the 9% are just poll dross. It was a really effed up question to ask in the first place. Basically a form of push poll.
what I want to know is who are the 9% of Democrats that believe ACORN stole the election from McCain?
PUMA types, would be my guess.
This whole thing makes me incredibly sad, "this whole thing" meaning "everything, everything."
But as for the poll, I agree that the 9% are just poll dross.
That's a good way of putting it. It seems like you can find 5% of any population saying any dang fool thing you can imagine. I'm not sure if that comes from the general use of the 95% confidence interval in designing polls, or if there is just a certain base level weirdness out there.
As it says in the constitution, it is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
As it says in the constitution, for those about to rock, we salute you.
or if there is just a certain base level weirdness out there.
Or a certain number of people who just like to mess with polls.
As it says in the constitution, blood and souls for my lord Arioch.
As it says in the Constitution, squeeze my lemon 'til the juice runs down my leg. Or was the the Magna Carta?.
As it says in the constitution, titties.
112 113 114
It's the same principle as Davis Bacon, if you have to pay union wages you might as well hire union people. And it encourages production processes that employ skilled labor as there is less wage advantage in using unskilled workers. There would be fewer unskilled illegal immigrants if there were fewer low pay low skill jobs available for them.
I guess the key here is enforcement. You would need an enforcement regime beyond the workers themselves, which maybe is quite feasible, I don't know.
In other words who is to stop the undocumented aliens from accepting below-legal pay?
As it says in the Constitution, "As it says in the Constitution, "As it says in the Constitution, ...
And who is to stop the employers from paying them? We could have raids and stuff, but so far I don't think law enforcement prioritizes this.
207
In other words who is to stop the undocumented aliens from accepting below-legal pay?
It's riskier and more complicated for the employer than simply hiring illegals. Most illegals are employed on the books where a below minimum wage would stick out. If you think the worker is illegal but he is legal he can complain and get you in trouble. Even an illegal worker may have an incentive (back wages) to blow the whistle if he is leaving the country anyway.
209
And who is to stop the employers from paying them? We could have raids and stuff, but so far I don't think law enforcement prioritizes this.
Most employers voluntarily comply with minimum wage laws. Even employers who don't want to hire illegals are effectively forced to under current law.
Even employers who don't want to hire illegals are effectively forced to under current law.
I don't think that this follows. What current law are you referring to? Don't employers currently hire illegals and pay them below minimum wage?
He's right - employers are forced to hire illegals under current law, if their competitors are achieving a big competitive advantage by doing so.
212 213
Employers are currently effectively forced to hire illegals because they are forced to accept easily forged documents as proof of legal work status.
Shearer was arguing that employers are adequately disincentivized from paying illegals below minimum wage. If that is the case, then what is the competitive advantage in hiring them? If this force is real, then it is real only because employers can successfully pay illegals below market wages, in which case, raising the minimum wage would not solve anything.
assuming 214 is correct, then we would still need to change the laws regarding proof of legal work status before raising the minimum wage would have an effect.
as to whether employers writ large are really "forced" to hire individuals to whom they can pay below-market wages, permit me to apply some skepticism.
215: in which case, raising the minimum wage would not solve anything.
It would not solve anything with respect to the employment of illegal workers. It would still raise the minimum wage for legal workers. Shearer's the one who was concerned to point out (in 111) that raising the minimum wage would ... wait. I'm not sure what Shearer's arguing.
Nevermind. It's unclear to me what's being argued. Sorry.
Wait--has raising the minimum wage become a popular position in anti-immigration circles? Because I may not like the ends, but I could get behind the means.
I don't think Shearer is being either crazy or overly complicated.
Imagine there are some set of employers that are inclined to both (a) abide by minimum wage standards and (b) not particularly concerned with policing immigration status.
An increase in the minimum wage could make it such that those employers would hire fewer illegal immigrants than they do now.
The size of that effect, seems difficult to predict, however.
Even an illegal worker may have an incentive (back wages) to blow the whistle if he is leaving the country anyway.
Definitely not my area of law, but this seems pretty unlikely. it seems pretty tough to litigate that case if you are no longer in the country, and I have a hard time seeing ICE (or CIS or whichever it is they call the INS these days) letting a plaintiff stick around to finish litigating a wage case.
220: So Shearer's conclusion is that yes, we should raise the minimum wage? Okay then! A rare case of comity.
I had a somewhat similar experience where a guy in line with me at Cap'n D's
Look on the bright side: he's eating at Cap'n D's. He won't live long.
what I want to know is who are the 9% of Democrats that believe ACORN stole the election from McCain?
Zell Miller probably accounts for 7% and PUMAs make up the other 2%.
A friend of mine became obsessed with ACORN this year. In spite of the fact that she'd never heard of them 18 months ago, now she's convinced that they're the root of all evil. I haven't asked--mostly because I've barely spoken to her all year--but I wouldn't be surprised if she believed that ACORN stole the election. She did invite me out a couple of weeks ago and I begged off. Really, I'm so pissed about the whole business that I don't much care if I ever speak to her again.
||
So my broker at Sittee (sp) has quit to go independant, and I'm talking to the person who wants to take over his clients and keep us at the big firm.
"yes" she says, "I agree that GDP will probably stay flat because production will be flat. When the government bailed out the union emplyees at GM and left the bondholders to eat the loss, that was a sign that the administration's's priorities weren't favorable for economic growth"
?? This is from a Certified Financial Planner, stockbroker, mid 30s, apparently able to pass for sane in society and hold down a job?
223: ACORN is tearing the nation apart.
From small ACORNs, mighty conflicts grow.
As the Constitution says, it's okay to own black people.
224: Eh, I'm sure she doesn't care that much one way or the other. It's what she was told to say in the sales meeting, and every second in the fucked-up hothouse environment of a retail brokerage sales office convinces her more that you have to spew bullshit and stab people in the back to keep your head above water.
227: Yes, but right from the start it said that after 1808 you could pass a law against kidnapping them from Africa.
227: Hey, if I get really pissed off at the customers at the Post Office, I'll use this one next time.
See, this is one reason I think I'd be incapable of writing whatever counts as a decent online dating profile. The sarcasm, it burns.
230: Happy to help! That's my standard response when talking to someone who's up-in-arms about the sanctity of the Constitution. Along with some lines like apo mentioned about NASA.
Sadly, they're only zingers in our own minds. They gain no purchase in the target minds.
Maybe we need yet another thread about the difference between .. what was it? The priorities held by liberals versus conservatives: the research done regarding whatever moral force adheres to tribal connection, as opposed to principle, as opposed to -- well, I'm forgetting.
I must eat. I heard recently that a friend died, so I'm a little distracted.
Thanks. She was 25. I don't have any suitable words for it.
They gain no purchase in the target minds.
I tell you what it does do, though: it makes them stop talking.
But what about the audience, though, Apo? What about the audience?
Perhaps they're able to get it all by themselves.
Think about all the people whose minds you've seen changed as the result of a political discussion on the internet -- you know, innocent bystanders who were steered in the right direction by someone both well-meaning and well-informed.
237: Or got straightened out on their ideas about economics.
112 113 114
Also raising the minimum wage would decrease political support for illegal immigration. Currently a large part of that support comes from employers operating on a low skill low pay business model. If you raise the minimum wage illegal immigration is less beneficial to such employers as there is a floor to how far illegal immigration can drive down wages.
Terrible, is the early review from children.
How high would the minimum wage need to be before immigrants began fleeing the country?
243
How high would the minimum wage need to be before immigrants began fleeing the country?
Again it is a matter of shifting the equilibrium. A marginal increase in the minimum raise should cause a marginal decrease in the number of illegals. And the bigger effect would be on prospective illegal immigrants. It is easier to deter someone curently out of the country from trying to enter illegally than to induce someone currently in the country illegally (who may have invested a lot to get and/or have developed ties here) to leave.
In re Princeton restaurants, we went to Eno Terra last night and it was excellent, great fried artichokes. And, I got credit for the choice. Thanks, Oudemia and Mineshaft.